Indeed. And if you look at the randomized usage report: http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf <http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf> you can read an interesting conclusion:
The key finding of the trial is that the exposure of articles in PEER repositories is associated with an uplift in downloads at the publishers’ web sites. This is likely to be the result of high quality PEER metadata, a liberal attitude towards allowing search engine robots to index the material, and the consequently higher digital visibility that PEER creates for scholarly content. Overall, the publisher uplift was 11.4% (95% confidence intervals (CI95), 7.5% to 15.5%) and was highly significant (p < 0.01). This finding is consistent with the only other experimental study that CIBER is aware of that used an RCT design to investigate the impact of institutional repository exposure on publisher downloads, albeit for a single journal (Sho and others 2011). Food for thought. Laurent > Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:42, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> a écrit : > > > Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project > that attempted to do exactly this comparison: > > http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ > <http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/> > > One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal > viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on > their viability. > > David > > On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca > <mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being >> done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving >> control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a >> toll-free copy available. >> >> I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: >> one in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary >> results have been released). >> >> Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on >> the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of >> use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads. >> >> Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by >> OA were, and still are, regularly aired. >> >> It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, >> pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss >> of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses). >> >> For details: >> http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf >> <http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf> >> and >> http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf >> >> <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf> >> >> Marc Couture >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
